Cases 1 - 10 of 27
ISHMAN v. SLOCUMB et al
as 1:2024cv00188
Plaintiff:
BRADLEY W. ISHMAN
Defendant:
OFFICER SLOCUMB, LIEUTENANT THOMPSON, CAPTAIN THOMAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Pippinger v. Buncombe County Government Employees et al
as 1:2023cv00355
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Daniel Pippinger
Defendant:
Buncombe County Government Employees, Buncombe County Corrections Officers, Mediko and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy v. Mail Room Staff
as 5:2022ct03004
Plaintiff:
Timothy Lafon Murphy
Defendant:
Mail Room Staff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Perry v. Cuitillar et al
as 5:2021ct03307
Plaintiff:
David Dwayne Perry
Defendant:
Dr. MD Cuitillar, Mrs. Wiggins, Dr. Nogo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
James v. Craggy Correctional Center Mail Room et al
as 1:2021cv00191
Plaintiff:
Harry Sharod James and Harry Sharod James-El
Defendant:
Craggy Correctional Center Mail Room, Eric A. Hooks and North Carolina Department of Public Safety-DAC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Meyers v. Boxer et al
as 5:2021ct03211
Plaintiff:
David Meyers
Defendant:
Captain Boxer, Lt. Mosley, A. David Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Corbett v. Hooks et al
as 5:2019ct03361
Defendant:
Officer Holmes, Mr. Ballard, Sgt. Brounson and others
Plaintiff:
Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tart v. Trock et al
as 5:2019ct03231
Plaintiff:
Jermaine Antwan Tart
Defendant:
Mail Room Staff and Mark Trock
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Simmons v. Mail Room Staff
as 5:2019ct03013
Plaintiff:
Roderick Bernard Simmons
Defendant:
Mail Room Staff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. Mail Room Clerks et al
as 5:2018ct03157
Plaintiff:
Anthony Ray Harris
Defendant:
Mail Room Clerks and Warden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
